IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v51y2022i1p271-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Candidate Support in Voting Rights Act Cases: Comparing Iterative EI and EI-R×C Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Barreto
  • Loren Collingwood
  • Sergio Garcia-Rios
  • Kassra AR Oskooii

Abstract

Scholars and legal practitioners of voting rights are concerned with estimating individual-level voting behavior from aggregate-level data. The most commonly used technique, King’s ecological inference (EI), has been questioned for inflexibility in multiethnic settings or with multiple candidates. One method for estimating vote support for multiple candidates in the same election is called ecological inference: row by columns (R×C). While some simulations suggest that R×C may produce more precise estimates than the iterative EI technique, there has not been a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the two methods using real election data that analysts and legal practitioners often rely upon in courts. We fill this void by comparing iterative EI and R×C models with a new statistical package—eiCompare—in a variety of R×C combinations including 2 candidates and 2 groups, 3 candidates and 3 groups, and up to 12 candidates and three groups and multiple candidates and four groups. Additionally, we examine the two methods with 500 simulated data sets that differ in combinations of heterogeneity, polarization, and correlation. Finally, we introduce a new model congruence score to aid scholars and voting rights analysts in the substantive interpretation of the estimates. Across all of our analyses, we find that both methods produce substantively similar results. This suggests that iterative EI and R×C can be used interchangeably when assessing precinct-level voting patterns in Voting Rights Act cases and that neither method produces bias in favor or against finding racially polarized voting patterns.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt Barreto & Loren Collingwood & Sergio Garcia-Rios & Kassra AR Oskooii, 2022. "Estimating Candidate Support in Voting Rights Act Cases: Comparing Iterative EI and EI-R×C Methods," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 271-304, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:271-304
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119852394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119852394
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119852394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke & Khanna, Kabir, 2016. "Improving Ecological Inference by Predicting Individual Ethnicity from Voter Registration Records," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 263-272, April.
    2. Barreto, Matt A., 2007. "İSí Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 425-441, August.
    3. Ferree, Karen E., 2004. "Iterative Approaches to R × C Ecological Inference Problems: Where They Can Go Wrong and One Quick Fix," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 143-159, April.
    4. Adolph, Christopher & King, Gary, 2003. "Analyzing Second-Stage Ecological Regressions: Comment on Herron and Shotts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 65-76, January.
    5. Wendy K. Tam Cho & Brian J. Gaines, 2004. "The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 152-171, January.
    6. Ori Rosen & Wenxin Jiang & Gary King & Martin A. Tanner, 2001. "Bayesian and Frequentist Inference for Ecological Inference: The R×C Case," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 55(2), pages 134-156, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarah Moon, 2024. "Partial Identification of Individual-Level Parameters Using Aggregate Data in a Nonparametric Model," Papers 2403.07236, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    2. D. James Greiner & Kevin M. Quinn, 2009. "R×C ecological inference: bounds, correlations, flexibility and transparency of assumptions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 67-81, January.
    3. Olga Orlanski & Günther G. Schulze, 2017. "The Determinants of Islamophobia - An Empirical Analysis of the Swiss Minaret Referendum," CESifo Working Paper Series 6741, CESifo.
    4. Irene L. Hudson & Linda Moore & Eric J. Beh & David G. Steel, 2010. "Ecological inference techniques: an empirical evaluation using data describing gender and voter turnout at New Zealand elections, 1893–1919," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 185-213, January.
    5. Kai On Wong & Osmar R Zaïane & Faith G Davis & Yutaka Yasui, 2020. "A machine learning approach to predict ethnicity using personal name and census location in Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Robert Collinson & John Eric Humphries & Nicholas Mader & Davin Reed & Daniel Tannenbaum & Winnie van Dijk, 2024. "Eviction and Poverty in American Cities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(1), pages 57-120.
    7. de Bromhead, Alan & Fernihough, Alan & Hargaden, Enda, 2020. "Representation of the People: Franchise Extension and the “Sinn Féin Election” in Ireland, 1918," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(3), pages 886-925, September.
    8. Puig, Xavier & Ginebra, Josep, 2014. "A cluster analysis of vote transitions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 328-344.
    9. Rob Eisinga, 2009. "The beta‐binomial convolution model for 2×2 tables with missing cell counts," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 63(1), pages 24-42, February.
    10. Joan G. Staniswalis, 2008. "Incorporating Marginal Covariate Information in a Nonparametric Regression Model for a Sample of R×C Tables," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1054-1061, December.
    11. John Eric Humphries & Nicholas Mader & Daniel Tannenbaum & Winnie van Dijk, 2019. "Does Eviction Cause Poverty? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Cook County, IL," CESifo Working Paper Series 7800, CESifo.
    12. Ludo Peeters & Coro Chasco-Yrigoyen, 2005. "Ecological Inference And Spatial Heterogeneity - A New Approach Based On Entropy Econometrics," ERSA conference papers ersa05p705, European Regional Science Association.
    13. DiBartolomeo, Jeffrey A. & Kothakota, Michael G. & Parks-Stamm, Elizabeth & Tharp, Derek, 2021. "Racial Animosity and Black Financial Advisor Underrepresentation," SocArXiv dkh5v, Center for Open Science.
    14. Lehmann, Sibylle H., 2010. "The German Elections in the 1870s: Why Germany Turned from Liberalism to Protectionism," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 146-178, March.
    15. Gow, Ian D. & Larcker, David F. & Watts, Edward M., 2023. "Board diversity and shareholder voting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    16. Antonio Forcina & Davide Pellegrino, 2019. "Estimation of voter transitions and the ecological fallacy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1859-1874, July.
    17. David A. Hoffman & Anton Strezhnev, 2022. "Leases as Forms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 90-134, March.
    18. Álvaro J. Corral & David L. Leal, 2020. "Latinos por Trump? Latinos and the 2016 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1115-1131, May.
    19. Pablo Sandoval & Silvia Ojeda, 2023. "Estimation of electoral volatility parameters employing ecological inference methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 405-426, February.
    20. Sabrina T. Howell & Theresa Kuchler & David Snitkof & Johannes Stroebel & Jun Wong, 2021. "Lender Automation and Racial Disparities in Credit Access," NBER Working Papers 29364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:271-304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.